Jonathan Cohen

>This repeated grilling and repeating the same question over and over is of no importance. >The Moorman photo, although useful in many respects, is WORTHLESS as evidence, because >it is demonstrated that THE ORIGINAL MOORMAN PHOTO HAS BEEN ALTERED TO PLACE >TWO FIGURES UPON THE PEDESTAL. It would not be admissible in any court in the land. Jack, if I'm not mistaken, didn't this photo run on national news wire services within hours of the assassination? If that's the case, how could the photo possibly have been altered in the manner you suggest, given the time constraints?

Paul, I am no expert on shadows, but I am wondering if you are able to posit a way this photo could POSSIBLY have been altered in the way you suggest and STILL be transmitted to newspapers around the world hours after the assassination? How could any forger or forgers possibly have gathered enough information to know which fake films and photos needed to "agree" with one another at this early stage of the game?

Bernice, what in the world are you talking about? "Started deliberately?" I think all anybody is trying to do here is have a productive discussion about the evidence. All one can hope is that Jack is willing to do the same when confronted here with photographs that seem to invalidate his theory about Chaney riding forward. There's nothing personal here. Let's talk about the evidence.

I can find no mention of Altgens disputing any of his photos in his Warren Commission testimony. But here's one interesting thing he DID say: "The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow pace and I stepped out in the curb area and made another picture as the Secret Service man stepped upon the rear step of the Presidential car and went to Mrs. Kennedy's aid."

>You end up claiming that whoever altered the Zapruder film made sure that all other films "conformed" to this alteration. This is the last stop on the choo-choo >train to the looney bin. Now the reality of what happened in Dealey Plaza is simply up to you. It is what you say it is unbothered by any confirmation or >disconfirmation by any film or photo evidence. If any film or photo clashes with what you say, you say it has been altered and should be ignored. This is just plain >nuts!! I couldn't not agree more with this assessment. Well said. I have yet to see a shred of evidence how all these films could have possibly been made to "conform" with one another.

Tell me if I'm reading all of this correctly. Horne's hypothesis is that all of the alteration to the Z-film happened within a day or two of the assassination?

>I just think its bunk to believe that SS agents, driving the presidential limo, would fire a weapon at the President and think they would not be discovered by the occupants in the car. >And no Paul, I am not obsessed with this thread. Just trying to understand why you would think this theory is possible. From what I have read here, this is all based on poorly worded statements from witnesses? >Answer me this, would The Governor and/or his wife have ringing in their ears if a gun was fired in teir direction, from 3-4 away? Wouldn't they remember that, if it happened? Amen! Well said. Paul, how could shots have been fired from within the limousine without A SINGLE PERSON having seen it happen? Even if we suppose it did happen, how could that possibly have been edited out of the several films that show the head shot?

>1. The FBI had ALL of the movies and photos >2. Many photos and movies are PROVABLY altered >3. No records exist of how the images were altered WHILE IN FBI CUSTODY >4. There is NO ALTERNATIVE except to deduce what happened. >Demanding a citation when no citations are known to exist is obfuscation. It is NOT "just because I say so." >It is because there IS NO RECORD. Jack, Jerry Logan asked you in the other thread discussing the motorcycle officers to provide documentation about whether the Paschall and Daniel films and the McIntire photos were ever in the hands of the FBI. If they were not, can you outline a scenario by which they could have been altered in the way you claim?

>Chris, you know that "such a timeline" is held secret in the "interest of national security" as are >many FBI records. If the FBI was complicit in the alteration of the films they rounded up, we >know that alterations done certainly would not be part of any public record. Jack, isn't the burden of proof incumbent on you in this case? You are alleging that the movements of motorcycle officers were altered in MULTIPLE films shot in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963. Chris asked if you can back that up with proof that the FBI had these films within a timeline that would make it possible for them to be altered. And your answer is that they did, but that the details are "secret." So we're left with accepting it, just because you say so. That doesn't work for me, and I suspect it does not for a lot of other researchers.

>>WHEN? When it was in the hands of the FBI. HOW? The same way the Z film was altered. See HORNE IV or HEALEY. Jack, do you really expect people to accept that this explanation is satisfactory? Where is the hard proof that this film was altered, beyond your insistence that it must be simply because one of the motorcycle officers isn't in the place you need him to be to make your theories work?

Why does it raise a red flag that the copy Groden showed on "Geraldo" was not "the best copy available?" The film was not officially available to researchers at that point, so he was working from the best copy he had access to. Are you implying that he purposefully didn't screen his best version? If so, what on earth would be the point in him doing that? As for "rogue copies," why are these automatically part of some "shell game" or "hoax?" It has been well-documented that when the Z film was in New Orleans during the Garrison trial that it was heavily bootlegged. It is then logical to assume that further copies would be made of these copies, resulting in an influx of not very good dubs into the research community and beyond. I'm just trying to understand why these things lend credence to arguments about the authenticity of the overall Z film.

Jack, Would you be willing to list some of the evidence you believe proves Zapruder wasn't on the pedestal? If it wasn't him, do you have ideas as to who it was instead? - JC

>Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of >limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed. I must say I am somewhat taken aback by the accusations being leveled at Josiah Thompson on this board over the past several days. Pamela, are you actually suggesting that Thompson intentionally tried to deceive his readers with "Six Seconds in Dallas?" What could possibly be the point of giving "new information but concealing more than it revealed?" What a waste of time! And do we really expect him to have to stand by every claim or theory he espoused 40 years ago? Isn't it possible that he simply made some mistakes, without there being some sinister overtone in play?

Very well said, and I agree. I very much want to believe the major claims being made in this book (eyes being painted on to autopsy photographs; Moorman photo altered; Badgeman being real). And while the evidence for them is indeed intriguing, to me it would be much stronger if it could be reproduced in the manner Brian suggests.

I'd have to agree. I am not yet finished with the book but so far I am finding the science behind it somewhat dubious. For one thing, Wilson appears to have not used any original photographs or negatives for his analysis ... he is using copies out of books and VHS tapes. Would be interested to hear further discussion about all of this.

Jonathan Cohen became fascinated by the Kennedy assassination as a pre-teen, when he watched a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald on television. He began actively researching the case around the time the film "JFK" was released, and began corresponding with other researches through the Prodigy and Compuserve Internet forums. At age 17, he spoke on a panel about discrepancies in the medical evidence during the ASK symposium in Dallas. After studying journalism at Indiana University, Jonathan established himself as a noted music critic for Billboard magazine.